Law-Abiding Foster Parents Lose Kids Because They Own A Firearm

[DutchJazzer]

Meet Kristi and Rod Beber; they’re foster parents who have cared for over 100 children and live in the Las Vegas, Nevada area. After waking to a domestic dispute on their property on the night of April 3, Kristi called 911 and Rod grabbed his legally owned firearm, according to local NBC-affiliate station KSNS:

“You want to protect your family and your house,” Rod said. “As a (Conceal and Carry a Weapon card) holder, one of the first things you want to do is take control of the situation.”

The incident ended when police arrived. A report was taken, no one arrested and no one was charged – but that wasn't the end. Three months later, the Department of Family Services pulled the Bebers’ foster license.

The agency told the Bebers in documents that "the incident did not describe an adult exercising sound judgment." And it cited a law that forbids any foster parent from having a loaded firearm in their home, regardless of the situation.

KSNS also added that the law changed in Nevada in June, which allows foster parents to own firearms and keep them loaded for self-defense. Introduced in the state legislature on February 17, AB167 says explicitly “Authorizes the storage and carrying of firearms and ammunition on the premises of a family foster home or by certain persons who reside in a family foster home under certain circumstances.” The Bebers intend to fight the decision.

It passed the State Assembly by a 26-15 vote, and the State Senate by a 16-3 margin. On June 10, Gov. Brian Sandoval signed it into law.

SHAMEFULL!

 

[Stoked]

Wait so you are mad that something came up and the law was applied. But then they saw that it was a bad law so they changed it and you're still mad?

 

[DutchJazzer]

Wait so you are mad that something came up and the law was applied. But then they saw that it was a bad law so they changed it and you're still mad?

mad? nah bro i aint MAD!

being mad is a waste of time

 

[Stoked]

mad? nah bro i aint MAD!

being mad is a waste of time

Fine, strongly negative emotion with the title of your choice.

How shameful that the state fix that law!

 

[franklin]

I think there might be more to this than Dutch is leading on...

 

[moevillini]

accidental discharge?
premature ejaculation?
shooting blanks?

all of the above?

 

[Miggs]

accidental discharge?
premature ejaculation?
shooting blanks?

all of the above?

I love it when you're naughty.

 

[babe]

Wait so you are mad that something came up and the law was applied. But then they saw that it was a bad law so they changed it and you're still mad?

We need to give you some help.

The needless termination of parental rights of foster parents on a very judgmental interpretation of the law that can only be explained as a political vendetta by government bureaucrats.

 

[moevillini]

We need to give you some help.

The needless termination of parental rights of foster parents on a very judgmental interpretation of the law that can only be explained as a political vendetta by government bureaucrats.

Fair or not, that law was in place when they agreed to be foster parents. At the time of the incident they were in violation.

Keep spinning though. Dizzy becomes you.

 

[Stoked]

We need to give you some help.

The needless termination of parental rights of foster parents on a very judgmental interpretation of the law that can only be explained as a political vendetta by government bureaucrats.

Fair or not, that law was in place when they agreed to be foster parents. At the time of the incident they were in violation.

Keep spinning though. Dizzy becomes you.

Ouch. To bad Moe had to help you Babe.

Not to mention that after this happened the law was changed and the family appealed and I bet they will win.

But hey, you have to take your little digs when you can to help your superiority complex. It's OK. I understand.

 

[babe]

Ouch. To bad Moe had to help you Babe.

Not to mention that after this happened the law was changed and the family appealed and I bet they will win.

But hey, you have to take your little digs when you can to help your superiority complex. It's OK. I understand.

I'm looking for fellow firearm owners that currently are or have been foster and/or adoptive parents to speak out at public workshop regarding firearm regulations you must abide by to be a foster/adoptive parent in Nevada.

The current regulations governing foster/adoptive licenses in Nevada does not prevent firearm ownership, however they do prevent the prevent the use of a firearm for self defense in the home, and place unreasonable requirements on carrying for self defense outside the home.





NAC 424.600 Weapons and ammunition. (NRS 424.020) Any weapons, such as firearms, air rifles,
bows, hunting knives or hunting sling shots, shall be unstrung and unloaded at all times when children are in the
home. They shall be stored in locked containers or rooms out of the reach of children or made inoperable.
Ammunition and arrows shall be stored in separate locked containers. Weapons shall not be transported in any
vehicle in which children are riding unless the weapons are made inoperable and inaccessible.
[Welfare Div., Req. for Foster Care § 108.4, 10-7-88, eff. 1-1-89] The problem with the code as is, the intent is to keep loaded firearms out of the reach of children (that's good) but like everything in government it's not exactly safe or logical in it's current form (that's bad).

The regulation as written does not allow you to keep a loaded firearm for home defense even if it's kept in a bedside gun vault. And while the current regulation as written does not prohibit CCW carry, it does required that every time you get in and out of the car you unload your weapon and make it inoperable. Not very safe or logical to be loading/unloading a firearm every time you get in and out of a vehicle.

Nevada is currently in the process of amending this code for the first time since 1989, and there is a public workshop scheduled for Monday December 16h. This exact NAC regulation is one that will be discussed since they are intending to add an exemption to allow police officers to carry their weapon in the presence of children when on duty.

Nevada Dept of Health & Human Services Child and Family Services

I'm trying to find any Nevada residents that currently are a foster parent, have been one in the past, or considered being one that would attend the public hearing to speak up about modifying this regulation.

Personally, I'd like to see the regulation written to allow firearms to be locked in a bedside gun vault loaded and add an exception for CCW. (something like firearms must be stored in a locked safe at all time when they are not physically carried on your person)

Most people I know just sign off and "agree" the the NAC and then they store and carry their weapon how they see fit. (a sort of unofficial don't ask, don't tell policy). However, I won't do that. I'm not willing to risk a child being placed in my home, finally having a stable place to live and then being pulled away because someone decides one day they don't like that I carry. It's not fair to that child.

The best outcome is to amend this NAC to something that keeps guns out of the reach of children while still allowing for personal defense use. Some minor common sense changes to the regulation can do that.

The Nevada Firearms Coalition is involved and will be present at the workshop. It's a chance to get on the record about the issue and start a dialogue to affect change.

Anyone that is interested in attending, please send me a PM with your contact or I can send you mine.

https://www.usacarry.com/forums/nev...un-owning-nevada-foster-adoptive-parents.html

lots of laws as they stand are "illegal" in denying some basic human right, and in some cases specifically the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Where that is the case, it's the illegal law and not the responsible human who is exercising his rights who is the lawbreaker.

The Nevada FPS had no specific provision that stated a foster parent could not own, or use a gun, lawfully. The law they cited as justification for terminating foster care was specifically relating to safe gun and other weapon storage to prevent children from hurting themselves. It is obviously a sort of vendetta on the part of some FPS official to go out looking for foster parents who legally exercised their right to self protection, and use that law in a vindictive way.

 

[Stoked]

https://www.usacarry.com/forums/nev...un-owning-nevada-foster-adoptive-parents.html

lots of laws as they stand are "illegal" in denying some basic human right, and in some cases specifically the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Where that is the case, it's the illegal law and not the responsible human who is exercising his rights who is the lawbreaker.

The Nevada FPS had no specific provision that stated a foster parent could not own, or use a gun, lawfully. The law they cited as justification for terminating foster care was specifically relating to safe gun and other weapon storage to prevent children from hurting themselves. It is obviously a sort of vendetta on the part of some FPS official to go out looking for foster parents who legally exercised their right to self protection, and use that law in a vindictive way.

So again, Dutch is mad that an issue came up, the law was applied, it was seen for the bad law it is and changed?

Would you still like it on the books?

 

[babe]

So again, Dutch is mad that an issue came up, the law was applied, it was seen for the bad law it is and changed?

Would you still like it on the books?

A law that made no reference to actual use of a weapon in a lawful way, even inside the home if necessary to protect one's self or family. . . . that was cited as a reason to terminate foster care. . . . it's not the law, it's the FPS that's the problem. Because the FPS has demonstrated an intent to abuse the law and discriminate against gunowners, the legislature had to go back and specifically state that gunowners, ccw permit holders, or persons acting in self-defense or protecting their children can not be denied the ability to provide foster care by the FPS. . . .

Even the news media coverage, and even the legislature, apparently are able to get it. The FPS was the problem. They interpreted the existing law wrongly, and had to be specifically told not to interpret it that way.

By the FPS interpretation, even police officers could not transport a foster child while having a holstered sidearm, and could not take it out to confront any threat in protection of a foster child.

So I see Dutch has got his retinue of angry annoyed irrational folks on his doorstep. But his title is not "angry" or inaccurate in this case, it's the plain fact.

Probably a fact that this site is a safe niche for folks who are just happy about the world, and even about the Jazz basketball prospects.

 

[moevillini]

Life is about choices. If you want to be a foster parent, and the regulations in your state or locality put restrictions on the use of firearms, then either you follow the restrictions or take your chances if you don't and something happens. Or you chose not to be a foster parent.

This is just a different twist on the story of that county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses. What is it with some people that they think they can just tailor the law to suit their beliefs?

 

[babe]

Life is about choices. If you want to be a foster parent, and the regulations in your state or locality put restrictions on the use of firearms, then either you follow the restrictions or take your chances if you don't and something happens. Or you chose not to be a foster parent.

This is just a different twist on the story of that county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses. What is it with some people that they think they can just tailor the law to suit their beliefs?

Oh, you mean like the Supreme Court did in 1856 in the Dred Scott decision? Or in the 1896 "Separate but Equal" ruling? Or in the case of a political activist Supreme Court in general making rulings not on the law but on a personal agenda?

I get you that you have no problems with all that. You just don't see it when you're having it all your way.

A mere human with actual rights. Insane.

tell you what, until you get it that even government employees, law enforcement, courts, legislatures have laws they need to follow, I'll keep on keeping on.

 

[Stoked]

And until you get it that they agreed and it was changed then you'll continue to be wrong.

Have fun waxing on about some grand conspiracy.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Life is about choices. If you want to be a foster parent, and the regulations in your state or locality put restrictions on the use of firearms, then either you follow the restrictions or take your chances if you don't and something happens. Or you chose not to be a foster parent.

This is just a different twist on the story of that county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses. What is it with some people that they think they can just tailor the law to suit their beliefs?

FIXED like a boss

 

[VINYLONE]

I think there might be more to this than Dutch is leading on...

Yup. I looked into the scenario and, of course, Butchy and I guess babe in this case, did their best to manufacture outrage. I think this case is cut and dry.

What I do have an issue with is this part of the article which may or may not be accurate:

The agency told the Bebers in documents that "the incident did not describe an adult exercising sound judgment."

 

[DutchJazzer]

Yup. I looked into the scenario and, of course, Butchy and I guess babe in this case, did their best to manufacture outrage. I think this case is cut and dry.

What I do have an issue with is this part of the article which may or may not be accurate:

the problem i see with this. is it is stigmatising gun ownership. witch will lead to guns being a tabooo.
its good if your anti gun, but not good if your pro gun

 

[VINYLONE]

the problem i see with this. is it is stigmatising gun ownership. witch will lead to guns being a tabooo.
its good if your anti gun, but not good if your pro gun

First of all, let me say, what stigmatizes the 2A movement or firearm advocates, whatever you want to call them, is people like yourself. Folks who like to yell smoke, when there isn't even a smoldering. There are laws on the books for a reason and as a gun owner you have to be aware of those laws, regardless of whether you agree with them. If you want to be a conscientious objector, so to speak, then don't cry outrage when you have legal recourse taken against you.

Second, if you're going to be a gun owner AND a foster parent, I think it would behoove you to do your due diligence in regards to whatever restrictions there are in owning a gun with foster kids in the house. Thankfully, the law referenced in the story was changed and I'm sure these parents will get their day in court and hopefully things will work out in their favor.

Please, Butchy, do us firearm advocates a favor and please shut it. Please.